So? Some people need to build up karma buffers for when they want to criticize sacred cows. I would know. Nothing wrong with building up karma of course, but there's a reason they call them "karma whores".
Again, since the karma index maxes out, and I'm (probably) already at the max, why do I need more karma, again? If you can explain that, I'd be grateful.
Right, because there has never been a story that had a "read the remaining 28084 bytes" on it.
I wasn't writing a book review or a journal entry; that information is superfluous to the main point of the submission, which is that Apple and AT&T finally released information on plans.
Strawman. The problem wasn't that you posted something informative, but that you intentionally delayed it for a vanity/karma post. It's not something you necessarily should apologize for, but intentionally withholding information from the original posting -- that most people will read -- so you can post it later and get karma, is sleazy.
All of your arguments seem to be based on you thinking I'm trying to "get karma" for the purpose of "criticizing sacred cows". If my karma is at the maximum, why do I need more karma? In other words, maybe I just posted because I actually wanted to, and the reasons why I said I posted it in my response to you are accurate on their face? Not everyone who posts things that get modded up quickly are "karma whores".
And if you want to bring logical fallacies into it, yours is one of
Yes, it's anticipated because some sites hype it up. As an advertiser I would love for my product to have this kind of free promotion. It necessarily has a network affect whereby hype generates hype.
Well, since this has been my first and only submission about anything related to this on this site or any other (other than the occasional traditional discussion forum), I fail to see how it's my fault that this submission itself was anticipated. I don't care how much hype there is, and if Apple and AT&T purposely delayed releasing the plans for hype value, or if they really just finalized them hours before the press release: it's still a piece of information people want to know, and again, I fail to see how it's inappropriate for slashdot.
If you're speaking to the larger point, yes, Apple works the system very adeptly. They get millions of dollars in free advertising (TIME covers, etc.) by managing the hype machine well. That doesn't change the fact that iPhone plans were a much anticipated piece of information. If you want to argue that posting them is "part of the problem", sure, I guess I'd agree with that, but no matter the reasons for the plans being highly anticipated, it still stands that they were. And therefore, the release of the plan information is noteworthy.
I'm just saying, maybe work on including definite articles in your writing?
Assuming you're being serious about my grammar for a moment...
It's appropriate to refer to many branded products such as iPhone as "iPhone" or "the iPhone", and I specifically choose to use the former. Some people take issue with others doing it because "that's what Steve Jobs does" (calls it "iPhone" instead of "the iPhone"). But, even that actually has some merit...if that's how the vendor itself refers to the product, I don't see the problem with referring to it as such. It doesn't give it any more credence or do anything for them whatsoever by calling it "iPhone" vs. "the iPhone".
It's not possible to inadvertently email classified information off the DoD classified network - the classified network isn't connected to the internet for this reason;-)
The user would had to have moved the data off the secure network to send it over the internet.
Or, you know, simply manually typed in information that was classified.
All classified information isn't in the form of preexisting documents that would be attachments. It's actually possible to discuss it verbally or via email, you know, and still have it be classified.
I'm aware of how the segregation of the networks works. But that's like saying it's "not possible" to discuss classified information on an insecure telephone or via insecure fax. Of course it is.
Oh yeah, I wouldn't be "surprised" by any of that; but I also wouldn't be surprised if there was a very easy (or "easy-for-the-savvy") workaround, even right out of the box. I mean, AppleTV is supposed to be an appliance, and look how hackable that is, or, for that matter, many of Apple's products. Of course this is a different game and AT&T is involved, but I'd bet there's an easy workaround to get everything set up and working on the iPhone with the exception of the phone functionality, unless a significant amount of effort was directed at preventing this (and they may have).
As to your other point about after expiration, yes, AT&T and/or Apple may have played some games there too. But I'd assume that they wouldn't want to brick the phone when it's out of contract. One thing that's interesting to me is the backend processes Apple and AT&T must have built to support activation, billing, customer account information, etc., via iTunes. I don't imagine this will be a big issue for many people, because aside from the AT&T exclusivity, most ordinary people will get the phone and use it as, well, a phone, and talking about all of this kind of stuff is moot.
Dave Schroeder found a great opportunity to nab some karma.
My karma is already excellent, and I didn't even know (or care) that article submissions added karma (do they?). If you're talking about my post, it contains more detailed information that wasn't appropriate for the submission. Since karma maxes out, and I'm likely already at that point (since from what I can tell it's pretty low), it's not something I exactly care about when posting. I apologize for posting something that others considered informative, and will refrain from doing so in the future.
...
Slashdot is partly an advertisement site, as nothing else can explain this "story". Remind me how many other advertisers get to have every new detail about upcoming products made into a/. story?
This has been one of the most anticipated pieces of information dealing with a product which has dominated this any many other news sites. I fail to see how it isn't a valid piece of information that many people were curious about.
Dave Schroeder has a deep, abiding fear of using "the".
Wow, now that one stings! It's almost like you found something factually incorrect with the content of the submission!
Nope. I don't sell cell phones (and never have), don't work for Apple or AT&T/Cingular (and never have), and I won't have anything to do with iPhone sales (other than buying one myself on Friday).
I just submitted it because one of the most awaited pieces of information about iPhone was its plans, and since every other story here and on other tech blogs lately seems to be about iPhone...well, you get the idea.
Yes, it's always been generally said that iPhone would require a two year contract, but what was said at the keynote was that the agreement between Apple and AT&T was a "multi year exclusive", which has subsequently been revealed to be five years. Until today, it appeared that AT&T would be selling the phones with mandatory activation, whereas you could just walk out with a phone from the Apple store. So, a lot of people were hoping that the phone was hackable or easily unlockable, so as to use it with other carriers. If the iTunes activation thing is easily worked around AND the phone is unlockable in some way, then you might be able to move it to another carrier. The worst case scenario - assuming the phone is unlockable - is that you sign on with AT&T, have them unlock the phone after 90 days (assuming it's unlockable in this way), cancel the contract, and move to another carrier. Obviously, a lot of people are hoping they can just buy the hardware, unlock it somehow, and use it on the carrier of their choice. That may still be possible, but we really won't know until people start playing with these things.
You want me to spend a minimum of $59.99/mo. + $499 for an iPhone?
No, I don't "want" anyone to do anything, other than know that plans have been released for iPhone.
Which is what a lot of people have been waiting for.
Which is why I submitted the story.
What else can you expect from a fat cat sconnie who prides himself on the BMWs he's owned and lists his top 'interest' as Apple?
Sorry I didn't submit as AC. Maybe I will next time to please you! And "fat can sconnie". Heh.
Also, I must deeply apologize for being interested in Apple. I know it's a rare ailment, and that it must offend you greatly. I'm almost shedding a tear!
- Since one would presume the iPod functionality of the device still needs to work when the contract expires, there is probably going to be a fairly easy hack/workaround to use only the iPod functionality (e.g., perhaps just a file sitting somewhere, a la.AppleSetupDone).
- It will be interesting to see whether AT&T will unlock the phone on request, as they do for other GSM phones (for international travel and prepaid SIMs), and if that is the case, how well other carriers' networks work with iPhone (obviously sans things like Visual Voicemail).
- Still no word on battery replacement specifics, but it seems safe to assume that iPhone is the same as iPod in this respect; namely, that it is sealed and that the battery isn't "user accessible", but that there will still be plenty of ways to replace the battery yourself or via third parties if you so choose (battery failure under warranty would be covered by the warranty). I'm going to be tracking this issue here.
- Still no word on insurance or AppleCare, but since all iPods have AppleCare options ($59 for two years), iPhone probably will as well.
- Two more days to determine this for certain, but it appears that if only the iPod/syncing functionality (or first time setup, anyway) is what is tied with iTunes activation, WiFi via the browser will probably work fine as-is without a contract. Note: it is not certain that this is the case, but it seems likely. (Just a point of information; not stating this as inconrtovertible fact. The only way this might not be the case is if the entire phone is just locked until activated, which seems unlikely.)
- Also remains to be seen how "hackable" the phone is in general. Here's to hoping.
OEM versions of Windows don't get Microsoft support, they get the OEM's.
I'm aware of that, thanks.
But this isn't only about OEM versions of Windows.
Retail Home variants of Vista also aren't licensed for virtualization. Where do you think that support comes from? (Whether it's from Microsoft "contractors", it's still Microsoft).
And Apple (in my opinion) doesn't want to become a Windows OEM in any way, shape, or form.
So the issue is really why virtualization isn't even supported on retail versions of Vista Home, and it's at least in part, if not mostly, for the reason I stated.
...with people using the lower-priced versions of Vista in virtualization environments they don't understand - on any platform - and then expecting support in such environments.
Obviously, there is nothing technical preventing a person from using any version of Vista in virtualization, and nothing at all, including the license, preventing usage of any version of Vista in Boot Camp.
I can't see a scenario where Apple would be interested in becoming a Windows OEM, supporting Windows, etc. Apple is more content with knowing that users in supported enterprise/academic/government environments can get Macs and use nifty technologies like Parallels, VMware, Boot Camp, etc., but isn't interested in getting into the Windows game itself.
One interesting item of note is that at many sites with Microsoft Volume Licensing Agreements, such as our own, Windows XP Pro and Windows Vista Enterprise are available essentially for free (just the cost of the media) for all departmentally-owned computers - including usage in virtualization, and including usage on Intel-based Macs.
So there are plenty of environments already that are very much taking advantage of this. Microsoft might not shed a tear if its licensing policy for Vista Home editions makes it a little harder financially for some people to justify the jump to Mac, but I doubt that's their primary focus.
Also, Apple doesn't really want to make it too easy for people to run Windows and Windows apps - just when they really need to. The idea is to bring more users to Mac OS X, so that app developers will bring apps to Mac OS X, which use all the nifty Mac OS X functionality. Who wants to run on a great OS (assuming that's the reason you switch) with all of your apps running in some Windows layer? Besides, many people who think they "need" Windows really don't, but the knowledge that they can run Windows if they needed to gets them over the hurdle. Or maybe the run Windows for a while, and realize they can duplicate everything they need and then some in OS X.
That said, yes, the seamless desktop integration features of Parallels Desktop and VMware Fusion are really impressive. You can, for the most part, use Windows apps and Mac OS X apps seamlessly, side by side, with Dock integration, and even the ability to specify which kinds of documents open in which environment when double-clicked.
In any event, there are other issues here on both sides.
Yes, if classified information is put on an unclassified terminal, that's a bad thing, but it still needs to be discovered.
And that also doesn't stop someone from simply manually typing an email message whose substance contains classified information. Not all classified information comes in the form of a document that will be an attachment...it could be just as simple as discussing a classified project or something similar, and then the recipient reporting the "breach". Without more information about what happened here specifically, we can't really tell more. I'm just trying to say that it's more than possible to mishandle classified information with any level of technical controls.
Yes, there are a lot of ways to help prevent this.
But nothing stops someone from typing up an email that contains classified information and sending it from their unclass account, inadvertently or otherwise. It's not like they magically need to be on JWICS to send top secret information. That's why we segregate the networks, yes - to attempt to prevent this from a technical standpoint as much as possible.
Also, there are ways to migrate information between networks, and those can be abused or used inappropriately. There are a lot of ways this accident might occur, and it probably happens more than we'd like.
How does the user control that? Are they all running sendmail (or some other MTA) locally on their machine, and given full control of email routing?
No. They just send classified information from an unclassified workstation and an unclassified email address, almost like any person would send email in any workplace. That's why some public areas have big signs that say DO NOT DISCUSS CLASSIFIED INFORMATION or watch officers answer phones with, "Good evening, Lt So-and-so speaking, this line is not secure. May I help you?" and insecure fax machines have UNCLASSIFIED decals all over them.
They're all reminders to properly handle classified information, a huge amount of which is up to the user.
And as to what you're asking, someone at LANL sent classified information from their unclassified email address on the unclassified network to someone's unclassified email address at the Nevada Test Site, another DOE facility, which is 1.) completely going over an unclassified network, and 2.) routed over the commodity internet in between.
No, you can't "accidentally" traverse unclassified, secret (L), and top secret (Q) networks. But you can use the wrong network for the wrong kind of information. There are technical controls to help prevent doing this easily, but that doesn't stop someone from manually typing up an email message containing classified information and sending it over the unclassified network.
And as to all your questions about security, yes, both ends are using secure connections to email servers, etc., but even if it was sent encrypted from one end to the other, it's not considered secure if it's going over the unclassified network, whether it's internal to a site or using the commodity internet. It would be the equivalent of you sending a message to joe.blow@nts.doe.gov right now. That's their unclassified email address, and it is "accessible" from the public internet.
You're missing one important piece of information in your description: how many false alarms does the border agent get from this system and all the other watchlist systems he has to work with? If the agent is getting hundreds of warnings that all turn out to be crap, why would he believe one good one?
Warnings on a passport to detain, immediately don protective gear, and notify DHS and CDC?
Not many.
That's why the agent's handling of this is such a big problem. And it represents another aspect of human failure in security.
Your point about false alarms is a valid one; this just isn't one of those examples.
And for anyone who is thinking about No-Fly lists or watchlists possibly falling into the "too many false alarms" category, they don't. When a name is on a watchlist, more detailed information about the person (e.g. DOB, addresses, etc.) is passed up the chain to any number of originating entities or authoritative sources. If that is the target, instructions for handling are passed back. If it isn't, the person is cleared. The reason why it's done this way is for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is so that people at airline ticket counters or fronline TSA staff don't have access to classified or private personal information (beyond what is volunteered or required to be given by the passenger) when processing passengers, to say nothing of the enormous technical complexities involved. That's why you hear stories about people not being able to "get off" watchlists. It's not "them" that's on the watchlist; it's someone who shares that - or a similar - name. That's why people who aren't actually wanted for anything whose names are on "watchlists" are always allowed to fly after the check. Persons in such situations who are frequent travelers are also able to get special documentation to solve this problem. But "they" can't "get off" the watchlist, because it's someone else who is on it, and that's what the detailed checking process confirms. Yes, it's a very, very imperfect system, but identification has always been a cornerstone principle in law for recorded history. We're using the best balance of technologies and privacy we have - really - to attempt to identify persons who should not be allowed to enter the US, fly, etc.
It's not really an indictment (which is what I think you meant to say) of anything. I'm not sure why this is modded up; there's no reason for a laptop that doesn't even have classified information to be set to self-destruct if its departure isn't approved, and unless every single email is manually checked, classified information will always be able to be sent over unclassified networks. In fact, someone with knowledge of classified information could go home, and send it from a Yahoo account. This instance just happened to be a legitimate accident. The only thing we can do is continue to constantly educate users, try to "make security easy", and have real a real policy and real repercussions when security is violated.
So he sent one mail and it was intercepted? Damn, this puts the "insecurity" of email communication in an entire new light.
No, there are probably plenty of other instances of classified information being sent over unclassified/insecure networks.
This is just one that was identified.
And what probably occurred is that the recipient realized what happened, and reported it.
(But, by your last statement, do you really think the national laboratories shouldn't try to prevent classified information from being sent over unclassified networks from official email accounts while at work, even if it meant some form of electronic monitoring? Not sure what you're getting at, there.)
It's worth noting in this example that if the laptop had been allowed to travel to Ireland with the employee with the proper approvals, as the article indicates, the material on the laptop was not classified, but rather deemed "sensitive". There are several classes of such sensitive but unclassified information. In the email instance, anyone can at any time send classified information over an unclassified network. It is up to the user to not do this. Granted, there are various technical and other procedures that can help prevent this, but it can never be completely avoided. These incidents seem rather tame, but since Los Alamos is under the microscope, every such incident will be greatly scrutinized - and sometimes blown out of proportion.
In the information security profession, several classes of threats to security, including physical security, are enumerated. However, the most significant threat of all, and one that can subvert even the best-laid plans for security, is the threat from human action. This threat is unavoidable, as humans are necessarily an integral component of any operation an organization may wish to secure.
The human threat can take the form of threats internal to an organization, and each of those threats can be intentional or accidental. Because of the access an internal person may have to sensitive areas or information, the threat from the actions of internal person are often rightfully considered the most severe. An internal person may also unwittingly act in concert with an external person who is a threat to the organization as well.
A recent example of such a failure of physical security occurred when a 31-year-old man attempted to enter the United States from Canada at the border crossing in Champlain, NY, on May 24, 2007. Upon presenting identification, the Customs and Border Protection agent handling the man's entry received a computer alert. The alert warned that agents should immediately don protective clothing and detain the individual, notifying the originating authority.
The next steps seem obvious: the man is detained, and border agents run the message up the notification chain, CDC eventually learns that the man in question has been located, and appropriate action is taken. The system works.
What happens instead is that the man is allowed to enter the United States with no further questions, and is at the border crossing for a total of less than two minutes. The agent later says he thought the warning was discretionary, that the man "seemed fine", and therefore let him proceed. Every part of the system worked: the CDC was able to properly place the man on appropriate watchlists, his passport was properly flagged upon entry, and relevant information was presented to the processing agent.
Every part, that is, except the human part.
The man in question is Andrew Speaker, an Atlanta lawyer who traveled with his fianceé to Europe for his wedding and honeymoon. While in Europe, he subsequently learned that further testing revealed that he was infected with Extensively Drug Resistant Tuberculosis, or XDR TB, a form of tuberculosis resistant to a wide variety of antibiotics and treatments, and which can have a 70% mortality rate. The CDC and health authorities did all they could to attempt to restrict his further travel, and thus protect the public at large. Speaker sidestepped No-Fly and other watchlists by flying to Prague, then to Montreal, and then driving to the United States.
The Department of Homeland Security has placed the agent, whom it has not identified, on leave while it reviews the incident, and related processes and policies. When a human charged with the ultimate protective responsibility errs, no amount of technology can solve that problem. What if this had been a man identified as on the way to the United States to intentionally spread an infectious agent? The frustrating element here is that all of the underlying information and identification systems were working - which is itself encouraging - but the individual
What this person is talking about is the zooming tricks iPhone uses to detect zones or areas on web pages.
But since the user can zoom and unzoom arbitrary amounts, and also drag the page around arbitrarily with their finger, and also have the option of viewing the page in either landscape or portrait, this is just a case of one person overreacting, and doing a poor job of explaining what they're talking about.
Sites that don't support the fancy things will simply probably zoom in (and out) some preset amount on a double click, and a user will still be able to zoom an arbitrary amount with multi-touch (e.g., pinch and unpinch).
Simple.
For those who don't know, iPhone uses some tricks to detect "zones" or "areas" on web pages that will automatically zoom to fit when double clicked, like a photo with caption, or a story column on a newspaper web page.
This person is overcomplicating things, and overreacting ("pitfalls"? "adjust [...] sites to ensure they work with iPhone"?) No sites need to be changed to work well with the browser (or, at least as well as, and, from all of the demos and appearances, probably quite a bit better than, any other mobile browser). The user wants to zoom in, they zoom in. So what if it's not perfect. Sure, some sites can offer a better "experience" specifically for iPhone if they choose, but they don't need to.
That's why this thing having a real, full browser, able to be viewed in portrait or landscape, is great. It will be nice to have a full browser on a phone that doesn't suck, even if I can't double-click and perfectly zoom to fit on a photo and instead have to zoom on an area of interest manually. Some might say "but it's not consistent!" Well, what do you think it does when you double click? If a special "zone" isn't present, it will probably just zoom as close to where you clicked as it can. If it's not perfect, you can even drag the display around with your finger, or pinch/unpinch to zoom more/less as appropriate.
Disclaimer: yeah, we don't "know" any of this yet, but just look at the demos and how the phone works. And anyone can try it out next Friday. It will probably be a much better browsing experience than on nearly any, if not all, other mobile browsers.
So I should get the iPhone for $500, and dump my Samsung Blackjack, which is smaller than the iPhone
"Smaller"?
Blackjack = 113mm tall iPhone = 115mm tall Difference = less than 1%
Blackjack = 59mm wide iPhone = 61mm wide Difference = less than 1%
slimmer than the iPhone
Wrong.
Blackjack = 12mm iPhone = 11mm Difference = more than 1%
lighter than the iPhone
Blackjack = 106g iPhone = 135g Difference = 25%
This is the only one where it makes any difference, but it's not as if 135g is heavy by any measure.
gets 800kbps in Manhattan via 3G HSDPA
Great. The *one* feature iPhone doesn't have that people carp about. Well, guess what? AT&T doesn't have 3G in my city and probably won't anytime soon, and definitely not within 2 years.
And the iPhone has WiFi. Which blankets my entire campus and city. Which is much, much faster than 3G.
(And yes, I will agree that some people "depend" on 3G, and the addition of WiFi doesn't help. I'm not one of those people on either count.)
has a finish which is almost impossible to scratch
Since iPhone isn't out yet, I guess we'll have to wait and see how durable it is.
To test iPhone's durability, Thandu says, they doused it with water, dropped it on concrete and bounced it off sidewalks.
Thandu says he took the iPhone with him on long runs, sweating all over it. "We wanted to test the limits of it."
has a real full QWERTY keyboard
Great. I like the keyboard on my Treo, too. But since iPhone has a keyboard when it needs one, we'll see how good it is. Is it likely to be not as nice as a tactile keyboard? Probably not. But then:
Not to mention all of the other features and functionality, multi-touch, the tightly integrated music, video, photo, etc., management, user interface, more than double the battery life, and so on. Of course, anyone can say they don't "need" any of these features, but to essentially call the iPhone a piece of junk is a little ignorant.
and cost me a whole of $50.
Congratulations. You get what you pay for. If it does the job and you like it, good for you.
AT&T girds for iPhone launch on June 29 By Leslie Cauley, USA TODAY
For consumers eager to get their hands on an Apple iPhone, here's the good news: It will be available in all 1,800 AT&T phone stores at 6 p.m. sharp on June 29.
The bad news? "We fully expect one or more of our stores to run out of stock on the first or second day -- my guess is the first day," says Larry Carter, senior vice president of sales for AT&T, the iPhone's exclusive U.S. distributor.
To help accommodate as much foot traffic as possible, AT&T phone stores will stay open an extra hour -- until 10 p.m. -- on the first day.
To get "iReady" for the big day, Carter says AT&T added 2,000 extra sales people to stores. Half will be there just to help handle the expected early crush of buyers. The other half, he says, will stay long-term to help with extra customers the iPhone is expected to draw to AT&T's stores.
Crowd control on launch day is a concern. In some markets -- Carter declined to name them -- AT&T is working with local law enforcement on crowd-control plans. It also has alerted landlords at shopping malls and other phone store locations to make sure nobody is caught off guard.
Not all stores are equal
Carter would not say which stores will have the biggest iPhone stockpiles, but allowed that iPod users are a "natural market" for the smart phone. As such, he says, stores in areas with big numbers of iPod users -- such as New York City, Chicago and much of California -- will be well stocked.
Does that mean that those stores will have more iPhones than stores in, say, Richmond, Va., or Florida? "Yes," he says. "It's just common sense."
If your local store sells out, Carter says sales people will take mail orders, and devices will be shipped in 3 to 5 days, inventory permitting. "Ultimately, we will meet every customer's desire to have one," Carter says.
To discourage sCalpers, AT&T plans to limit how many phones each customer can buy. Carter declined to cite the number, saying only that AT&T would try to prevent "hoarding and reselling."
New service plans for iPhone
There are other surprises in the works for June 29. In addition to launching the iPhone that day, Carter says AT&T also will announce new service plans for it.
He declined to be specific, but says plans will be customized for the iPhone. Translation: The iPhone may offer cool features such as unlimited Web browsing, but you'll have to pay for them.
Carter says the additional fees shouldn't be a surprise. "Regardless of which device you're using today, you pay us a certain amount for (voice) minutes, and you also pay us for data units," he says. "That is also true on the iPhone."
No amount of planning will help, however, if Apple is unable to supply enough phones. "That's what we stay awake at night thinking about," Carter says.
It's also out of AT&T's control. Manufacturing is being overseen by Apple, which also maintains control of design, customer care (for the device, not monthly service), advertising and more.
Apple, famously secretive about its products, has been mum about its Apple Store sales plans. So far, it has not allowed AT&T sales staff access to iPhones so they can get comfortable using them before the big day. "Apple wanted to launch it that way," Carter shrugs.
Only as good as network
One thing AT&T does control, however, is the network on which the iPhone will depend. While network reliability might not have the sex appeal of an iPhone, it could spell the difference between the device becoming a runaway success -- or a flop.
Because it is a superlative value judgement, of course. In who's judgement is he "by far the most influential"? A fanboy's, of course.
Ugh. Look, I'm not the kind of person that thinks that Steve Jobs is some kind of savior. Sure, it's a subjective judgment. But you made it appear that I said that Steve jobs is the most influential person in media, music, and computing in general, when what I said was that he was the most influential person in media, music, and computing to publicly and vocally advocate for the removal of DRM from mainstream music (and is actually following through). Is there any scientific measure by which we can judge this? Of course not. Then why not show my statement in context? Anyone who knows the issues here, and knows all of the people who have come down on the side of anti-DRM (at the very least from a public/PR perspective), would probably agree that Jobs is the most "influential" person to have that position. He's the CEO of a major computer company which is also the largest online music retailer, the CEO of a major computer animation movie company, and a board member of a major media and entertainment corporation (Disney). It's safe to say that he's probably the most influential person in media, music, and computing to have advocated for the removal of DRM from mainstream music.
So it looks like WiFi is the main thing you're taking issue with. Yes, I don't "know" that iPhone won't have WiFi functionality locked to a contract, in the same way I don't "know" for certain that I'll be alive a half hour from now. Ok, ok, maybe that's a slight stretch, but I'm being serious here. Let's examine this:
- In order for WiFi to be locked on iPhone, the phone would need to have some level of awareness of whether it has an active contract with the carrier (in the case of the US, AT&T).
- If it is out of range of all towers and/or the radio is turned off, the phone cannot tell via any mechanism whether it has an active contract.
Would you agree that it would be absolutely ridiculous for WiFi to not work whenever it's out of range of a tower, or, more commonly, its radio is turned off? I suppose you could say that it would check each time it WAS in range and/or turned on, and the second it found out that it no longer had a valid contract, it would immediately disable WiFi. Is that technically possible? Sure. But why on earth would Apple do that? The only reason I'm even talking about it, at all, is because there was one blog post, that is now getting regurgitated everywhere, saying this was the case, even though it appeared to be the result of someone misunderstanding what they were told. If there weren't people going around definitively claiming that it looks like WiFi will be locked to a contract when it makes no sense for it to be, I wouldn't be arguing against that point from a logical standpoint. We don't need to physically have iPhones in either of our hands to know that it would be ridiculous for WiFi to be locked to a contract for the technical reasons I described. And if they did the scenario where they polled and then disabled WiFi the first time it "discovered" it wasn't on contract; well, why would they do that? You say "it would be trivial to do". But why would they? There is NO reason to believe that any more than there is reason to believe that they could have it automatically hang up on each call after 5 minutes. We don't "know" that Apple hasn't done that, either, and it would be trivial for them to implement. Do you understand where I'm coming from here, being serious for a second? There is no reason to believe that WiFi is locked to a contract. You can come back and say there's not reason to believe it isn't, as if that argument is somehow on even footing, when the truth is that it will almost certainly not be "locked" to anything. I know, I know, you can keep going back to the refrain that we "don't know that". But there are logical assumptions you can correctly make without seeing something in your hands. It makes zero sense from any p
Slashdot Mirror
And if you want to bring logical fallacies into it, yours is one of
Oops, slashdot didn't the symbols I included around the text that followed.
That should read:
And if you want to bring logical fallacies into it, yours is one of, "All A are in B. Therefore, all B must be in A."
So? Some people need to build up karma buffers for when they want to criticize sacred cows. I would know. Nothing wrong with building up karma of course, but there's a reason they call them "karma whores".
Again, since the karma index maxes out, and I'm (probably) already at the max, why do I need more karma, again? If you can explain that, I'd be grateful.
Right, because there has never been a story that had a "read the remaining 28084 bytes" on it.
I wasn't writing a book review or a journal entry; that information is superfluous to the main point of the submission, which is that Apple and AT&T finally released information on plans.
Strawman. The problem wasn't that you posted something informative, but that you intentionally delayed it for a vanity/karma post. It's not something you necessarily should apologize for, but intentionally withholding information from the original posting -- that most people will read -- so you can post it later and get karma, is sleazy.
All of your arguments seem to be based on you thinking I'm trying to "get karma" for the purpose of "criticizing sacred cows". If my karma is at the maximum, why do I need more karma? In other words, maybe I just posted because I actually wanted to, and the reasons why I said I posted it in my response to you are accurate on their face? Not everyone who posts things that get modded up quickly are "karma whores".
And if you want to bring logical fallacies into it, yours is one of
Yes, it's anticipated because some sites hype it up. As an advertiser I would love for my product to have this kind of free promotion. It necessarily has a network affect whereby hype generates hype.
Well, since this has been my first and only submission about anything related to this on this site or any other (other than the occasional traditional discussion forum), I fail to see how it's my fault that this submission itself was anticipated. I don't care how much hype there is, and if Apple and AT&T purposely delayed releasing the plans for hype value, or if they really just finalized them hours before the press release: it's still a piece of information people want to know, and again, I fail to see how it's inappropriate for slashdot.
If you're speaking to the larger point, yes, Apple works the system very adeptly. They get millions of dollars in free advertising (TIME covers, etc.) by managing the hype machine well. That doesn't change the fact that iPhone plans were a much anticipated piece of information. If you want to argue that posting them is "part of the problem", sure, I guess I'd agree with that, but no matter the reasons for the plans being highly anticipated, it still stands that they were. And therefore, the release of the plan information is noteworthy.
I'm just saying, maybe work on including definite articles in your writing?
Assuming you're being serious about my grammar for a moment...
It's appropriate to refer to many branded products such as iPhone as "iPhone" or "the iPhone", and I specifically choose to use the former. Some people take issue with others doing it because "that's what Steve Jobs does" (calls it "iPhone" instead of "the iPhone"). But, even that actually has some merit...if that's how the vendor itself refers to the product, I don't see the problem with referring to it as such. It doesn't give it any more credence or do anything for them whatsoever by calling it "iPhone" vs. "the iPhone".
It's not possible to inadvertently email classified information off the DoD classified network - the classified network isn't connected to the internet for this reason ;-)
The user would had to have moved the data off the secure network to send it over the internet.
Or, you know, simply manually typed in information that was classified.
All classified information isn't in the form of preexisting documents that would be attachments. It's actually possible to discuss it verbally or via email, you know, and still have it be classified.
I'm aware of how the segregation of the networks works. But that's like saying it's "not possible" to discuss classified information on an insecure telephone or via insecure fax. Of course it is.
Oh yeah, I wouldn't be "surprised" by any of that; but I also wouldn't be surprised if there was a very easy (or "easy-for-the-savvy") workaround, even right out of the box. I mean, AppleTV is supposed to be an appliance, and look how hackable that is, or, for that matter, many of Apple's products. Of course this is a different game and AT&T is involved, but I'd bet there's an easy workaround to get everything set up and working on the iPhone with the exception of the phone functionality, unless a significant amount of effort was directed at preventing this (and they may have).
As to your other point about after expiration, yes, AT&T and/or Apple may have played some games there too. But I'd assume that they wouldn't want to brick the phone when it's out of contract. One thing that's interesting to me is the backend processes Apple and AT&T must have built to support activation, billing, customer account information, etc., via iTunes. I don't imagine this will be a big issue for many people, because aside from the AT&T exclusivity, most ordinary people will get the phone and use it as, well, a phone, and talking about all of this kind of stuff is moot.
My karma is already excellent, and I didn't even know (or care) that article submissions added karma (do they?). If you're talking about my post, it contains more detailed information that wasn't appropriate for the submission. Since karma maxes out, and I'm likely already at that point (since from what I can tell it's pretty low), it's not something I exactly care about when posting. I apologize for posting something that others considered informative, and will refrain from doing so in the future.
...
/. story?
Slashdot is partly an advertisement site, as nothing else can explain this "story". Remind me how many other advertisers get to have every new detail about upcoming products made into a
This has been one of the most anticipated pieces of information dealing with a product which has dominated this any many other news sites. I fail to see how it isn't a valid piece of information that many people were curious about.
Dave Schroeder has a deep, abiding fear of using "the".
Wow, now that one stings! It's almost like you found something factually incorrect with the content of the submission!
Oh, wait...
Nope. I don't sell cell phones (and never have), don't work for Apple or AT&T/Cingular (and never have), and I won't have anything to do with iPhone sales (other than buying one myself on Friday).
I just submitted it because one of the most awaited pieces of information about iPhone was its plans, and since every other story here and on other tech blogs lately seems to be about iPhone...well, you get the idea.
Actually, it's not quite that simple.
Here is who's carrying it:
- Apple retail stores
- Apple online store
- AT&T corporate stores (not corporate kiosks or resellers initially, but those may come in the future)
As to the other points:
Yes, it's always been generally said that iPhone would require a two year contract, but what was said at the keynote was that the agreement between Apple and AT&T was a "multi year exclusive", which has subsequently been revealed to be five years. Until today, it appeared that AT&T would be selling the phones with mandatory activation, whereas you could just walk out with a phone from the Apple store. So, a lot of people were hoping that the phone was hackable or easily unlockable, so as to use it with other carriers. If the iTunes activation thing is easily worked around AND the phone is unlockable in some way, then you might be able to move it to another carrier. The worst case scenario - assuming the phone is unlockable - is that you sign on with AT&T, have them unlock the phone after 90 days (assuming it's unlockable in this way), cancel the contract, and move to another carrier. Obviously, a lot of people are hoping they can just buy the hardware, unlock it somehow, and use it on the carrier of their choice. That may still be possible, but we really won't know until people start playing with these things.
Nice slashvertisement there, Dave.
So, people aren't interested in this?
Ooookayyyy...
You want me to spend a minimum of $59.99/mo. + $499 for an iPhone?
No, I don't "want" anyone to do anything, other than know that plans have been released for iPhone.
Which is what a lot of people have been waiting for.
Which is why I submitted the story.
What else can you expect from a fat cat sconnie who prides himself on the BMWs he's owned and lists his top 'interest' as Apple?
Sorry I didn't submit as AC. Maybe I will next time to please you! And "fat can sconnie". Heh.
Also, I must deeply apologize for being interested in Apple. I know it's a rare ailment, and that it must offend you greatly. I'm almost shedding a tear!
- iPhone DOES have a user-accessible SIM tray.
.AppleSetupDone).
- Since one would presume the iPod functionality of the device still needs to work when the contract expires, there is probably going to be a fairly easy hack/workaround to use only the iPod functionality (e.g., perhaps just a file sitting somewhere, a la
- It will be interesting to see whether AT&T will unlock the phone on request, as they do for other GSM phones (for international travel and prepaid SIMs), and if that is the case, how well other carriers' networks work with iPhone (obviously sans things like Visual Voicemail).
- Still no word on battery replacement specifics, but it seems safe to assume that iPhone is the same as iPod in this respect; namely, that it is sealed and that the battery isn't "user accessible", but that there will still be plenty of ways to replace the battery yourself or via third parties if you so choose (battery failure under warranty would be covered by the warranty). I'm going to be tracking this issue here.
- Still no word on insurance or AppleCare, but since all iPods have AppleCare options ($59 for two years), iPhone probably will as well.
- Two more days to determine this for certain, but it appears that if only the iPod/syncing functionality (or first time setup, anyway) is what is tied with iTunes activation, WiFi via the browser will probably work fine as-is without a contract. Note: it is not certain that this is the case, but it seems likely. (Just a point of information; not stating this as inconrtovertible fact. The only way this might not be the case is if the entire phone is just locked until activated, which seems unlikely.)
- Also remains to be seen how "hackable" the phone is in general. Here's to hoping.
OEM versions of Windows don't get Microsoft support, they get the OEM's.
I'm aware of that, thanks.
But this isn't only about OEM versions of Windows.
Retail Home variants of Vista also aren't licensed for virtualization. Where do you think that support comes from? (Whether it's from Microsoft "contractors", it's still Microsoft).
And Apple (in my opinion) doesn't want to become a Windows OEM in any way, shape, or form.
So the issue is really why virtualization isn't even supported on retail versions of Vista Home, and it's at least in part, if not mostly, for the reason I stated.
...with people using the lower-priced versions of Vista in virtualization environments they don't understand - on any platform - and then expecting support in such environments.
Obviously, there is nothing technical preventing a person from using any version of Vista in virtualization, and nothing at all, including the license, preventing usage of any version of Vista in Boot Camp.
I can't see a scenario where Apple would be interested in becoming a Windows OEM, supporting Windows, etc. Apple is more content with knowing that users in supported enterprise/academic/government environments can get Macs and use nifty technologies like Parallels, VMware, Boot Camp, etc., but isn't interested in getting into the Windows game itself.
One interesting item of note is that at many sites with Microsoft Volume Licensing Agreements, such as our own, Windows XP Pro and Windows Vista Enterprise are available essentially for free (just the cost of the media) for all departmentally-owned computers - including usage in virtualization, and including usage on Intel-based Macs.
So there are plenty of environments already that are very much taking advantage of this. Microsoft might not shed a tear if its licensing policy for Vista Home editions makes it a little harder financially for some people to justify the jump to Mac, but I doubt that's their primary focus.
Also, Apple doesn't really want to make it too easy for people to run Windows and Windows apps - just when they really need to. The idea is to bring more users to Mac OS X, so that app developers will bring apps to Mac OS X, which use all the nifty Mac OS X functionality. Who wants to run on a great OS (assuming that's the reason you switch) with all of your apps running in some Windows layer? Besides, many people who think they "need" Windows really don't, but the knowledge that they can run Windows if they needed to gets them over the hurdle. Or maybe the run Windows for a while, and realize they can duplicate everything they need and then some in OS X.
That said, yes, the seamless desktop integration features of Parallels Desktop and VMware Fusion are really impressive. You can, for the most part, use Windows apps and Mac OS X apps seamlessly, side by side, with Dock integration, and even the ability to specify which kinds of documents open in which environment when double-clicked.
In any event, there are other issues here on both sides.
Yes, if classified information is put on an unclassified terminal, that's a bad thing, but it still needs to be discovered.
And that also doesn't stop someone from simply manually typing an email message whose substance contains classified information. Not all classified information comes in the form of a document that will be an attachment...it could be just as simple as discussing a classified project or something similar, and then the recipient reporting the "breach". Without more information about what happened here specifically, we can't really tell more. I'm just trying to say that it's more than possible to mishandle classified information with any level of technical controls.
Yes, there are a lot of ways to help prevent this.
But nothing stops someone from typing up an email that contains classified information and sending it from their unclass account, inadvertently or otherwise. It's not like they magically need to be on JWICS to send top secret information. That's why we segregate the networks, yes - to attempt to prevent this from a technical standpoint as much as possible.
Also, there are ways to migrate information between networks, and those can be abused or used inappropriately. There are a lot of ways this accident might occur, and it probably happens more than we'd like.
How does the user control that? Are they all running sendmail (or some other MTA) locally on their machine, and given full control of email routing?
No. They just send classified information from an unclassified workstation and an unclassified email address, almost like any person would send email in any workplace. That's why some public areas have big signs that say DO NOT DISCUSS CLASSIFIED INFORMATION or watch officers answer phones with, "Good evening, Lt So-and-so speaking, this line is not secure. May I help you?" and insecure fax machines have UNCLASSIFIED decals all over them.
They're all reminders to properly handle classified information, a huge amount of which is up to the user.
And as to what you're asking, someone at LANL sent classified information from their unclassified email address on the unclassified network to someone's unclassified email address at the Nevada Test Site, another DOE facility, which is 1.) completely going over an unclassified network, and 2.) routed over the commodity internet in between.
No, you can't "accidentally" traverse unclassified, secret (L), and top secret (Q) networks. But you can use the wrong network for the wrong kind of information. There are technical controls to help prevent doing this easily, but that doesn't stop someone from manually typing up an email message containing classified information and sending it over the unclassified network.
And as to all your questions about security, yes, both ends are using secure connections to email servers, etc., but even if it was sent encrypted from one end to the other, it's not considered secure if it's going over the unclassified network, whether it's internal to a site or using the commodity internet. It would be the equivalent of you sending a message to joe.blow@nts.doe.gov right now. That's their unclassified email address, and it is "accessible" from the public internet.
You're missing one important piece of information in your description: how many false alarms does the border agent get from this system and all the other watchlist systems he has to work with? If the agent is getting hundreds of warnings that all turn out to be crap, why would he believe one good one?
Warnings on a passport to detain, immediately don protective gear, and notify DHS and CDC?
Not many.
That's why the agent's handling of this is such a big problem. And it represents another aspect of human failure in security.
Your point about false alarms is a valid one; this just isn't one of those examples.
And for anyone who is thinking about No-Fly lists or watchlists possibly falling into the "too many false alarms" category, they don't. When a name is on a watchlist, more detailed information about the person (e.g. DOB, addresses, etc.) is passed up the chain to any number of originating entities or authoritative sources. If that is the target, instructions for handling are passed back. If it isn't, the person is cleared. The reason why it's done this way is for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is so that people at airline ticket counters or fronline TSA staff don't have access to classified or private personal information (beyond what is volunteered or required to be given by the passenger) when processing passengers, to say nothing of the enormous technical complexities involved. That's why you hear stories about people not being able to "get off" watchlists. It's not "them" that's on the watchlist; it's someone who shares that - or a similar - name. That's why people who aren't actually wanted for anything whose names are on "watchlists" are always allowed to fly after the check. Persons in such situations who are frequent travelers are also able to get special documentation to solve this problem. But "they" can't "get off" the watchlist, because it's someone else who is on it, and that's what the detailed checking process confirms. Yes, it's a very, very imperfect system, but identification has always been a cornerstone principle in law for recorded history. We're using the best balance of technologies and privacy we have - really - to attempt to identify persons who should not be allowed to enter the US, fly, etc.
A human, especially one with inside access, can always subvert most any security plan.
It's not really an indictment (which is what I think you meant to say) of anything. I'm not sure why this is modded up; there's no reason for a laptop that doesn't even have classified information to be set to self-destruct if its departure isn't approved, and unless every single email is manually checked, classified information will always be able to be sent over unclassified networks. In fact, someone with knowledge of classified information could go home, and send it from a Yahoo account. This instance just happened to be a legitimate accident. The only thing we can do is continue to constantly educate users, try to "make security easy", and have real a real policy and real repercussions when security is violated.
So he sent one mail and it was intercepted? Damn, this puts the "insecurity" of email communication in an entire new light.
No, there are probably plenty of other instances of classified information being sent over unclassified/insecure networks.
This is just one that was identified.
And what probably occurred is that the recipient realized what happened, and reported it.
(But, by your last statement, do you really think the national laboratories shouldn't try to prevent classified information from being sent over unclassified networks from official email accounts while at work, even if it meant some form of electronic monitoring? Not sure what you're getting at, there.)
It's worth noting in this example that if the laptop had been allowed to travel to Ireland with the employee with the proper approvals, as the article indicates, the material on the laptop was not classified, but rather deemed "sensitive". There are several classes of such sensitive but unclassified information. In the email instance, anyone can at any time send classified information over an unclassified network. It is up to the user to not do this. Granted, there are various technical and other procedures that can help prevent this, but it can never be completely avoided. These incidents seem rather tame, but since Los Alamos is under the microscope, every such incident will be greatly scrutinized - and sometimes blown out of proportion.
In the information security profession, several classes of threats to security, including physical security, are enumerated. However, the most significant threat of all, and one that can subvert even the best-laid plans for security, is the threat from human action. This threat is unavoidable, as humans are necessarily an integral component of any operation an organization may wish to secure.
The human threat can take the form of threats internal to an organization, and each of those threats can be intentional or accidental. Because of the access an internal person may have to sensitive areas or information, the threat from the actions of internal person are often rightfully considered the most severe. An internal person may also unwittingly act in concert with an external person who is a threat to the organization as well.
A recent example of such a failure of physical security occurred when a 31-year-old man attempted to enter the United States from Canada at the border crossing in Champlain, NY, on May 24, 2007. Upon presenting identification, the Customs and Border Protection agent handling the man's entry received a computer alert. The alert warned that agents should immediately don protective clothing and detain the individual, notifying the originating authority.
The next steps seem obvious: the man is detained, and border agents run the message up the notification chain, CDC eventually learns that the man in question has been located, and appropriate action is taken. The system works.
What happens instead is that the man is allowed to enter the United States with no further questions, and is at the border crossing for a total of less than two minutes. The agent later says he thought the warning was discretionary, that the man "seemed fine", and therefore let him proceed. Every part of the system worked: the CDC was able to properly place the man on appropriate watchlists, his passport was properly flagged upon entry, and relevant information was presented to the processing agent.
Every part, that is, except the human part.
The man in question is Andrew Speaker, an Atlanta lawyer who traveled with his fianceé to Europe for his wedding and honeymoon. While in Europe, he subsequently learned that further testing revealed that he was infected with Extensively Drug Resistant Tuberculosis, or XDR TB, a form of tuberculosis resistant to a wide variety of antibiotics and treatments, and which can have a 70% mortality rate. The CDC and health authorities did all they could to attempt to restrict his further travel, and thus protect the public at large. Speaker sidestepped No-Fly and other watchlists by flying to Prague, then to Montreal, and then driving to the United States.
The Department of Homeland Security has placed the agent, whom it has not identified, on leave while it reviews the incident, and related processes and policies. When a human charged with the ultimate protective responsibility errs, no amount of technology can solve that problem. What if this had been a man identified as on the way to the United States to intentionally spread an infectious agent? The frustrating element here is that all of the underlying information and identification systems were working - which is itself encouraging - but the individual
How is Safari "broken"?
I (and many other people) use Safari as my primary browser, and almost never encounter any site that has any issues with Safari.
Everything that works in Safari works on iPhone.
What this person is talking about is the zooming tricks iPhone uses to detect zones or areas on web pages.
But since the user can zoom and unzoom arbitrary amounts, and also drag the page around arbitrarily with their finger, and also have the option of viewing the page in either landscape or portrait, this is just a case of one person overreacting, and doing a poor job of explaining what they're talking about.
Sites that don't support the fancy things will simply probably zoom in (and out) some preset amount on a double click, and a user will still be able to zoom an arbitrary amount with multi-touch (e.g., pinch and unpinch).
Simple.
For those who don't know, iPhone uses some tricks to detect "zones" or "areas" on web pages that will automatically zoom to fit when double clicked, like a photo with caption, or a story column on a newspaper web page.
This person is overcomplicating things, and overreacting ("pitfalls"? "adjust [...] sites to ensure they work with iPhone"?) No sites need to be changed to work well with the browser (or, at least as well as, and, from all of the demos and appearances, probably quite a bit better than, any other mobile browser). The user wants to zoom in, they zoom in. So what if it's not perfect. Sure, some sites can offer a better "experience" specifically for iPhone if they choose, but they don't need to.
That's why this thing having a real, full browser, able to be viewed in portrait or landscape, is great. It will be nice to have a full browser on a phone that doesn't suck, even if I can't double-click and perfectly zoom to fit on a photo and instead have to zoom on an area of interest manually. Some might say "but it's not consistent!" Well, what do you think it does when you double click? If a special "zone" isn't present, it will probably just zoom as close to where you clicked as it can. If it's not perfect, you can even drag the display around with your finger, or pinch/unpinch to zoom more/less as appropriate.
Disclaimer: yeah, we don't "know" any of this yet, but just look at the demos and how the phone works. And anyone can try it out next Friday. It will probably be a much better browsing experience than on nearly any, if not all, other mobile browsers.
So I should get the iPhone for $500, and dump my Samsung Blackjack, which is smaller than the iPhone
"Smaller"?
Blackjack = 113mm tall
iPhone = 115mm tall
Difference = less than 1%
Blackjack = 59mm wide
iPhone = 61mm wide
Difference = less than 1%
slimmer than the iPhone
Wrong.
Blackjack = 12mm
iPhone = 11mm
Difference = more than 1%
lighter than the iPhone
Blackjack = 106g
iPhone = 135g
Difference = 25%
This is the only one where it makes any difference, but it's not as if 135g is heavy by any measure.
gets 800kbps in Manhattan via 3G HSDPA
Great. The *one* feature iPhone doesn't have that people carp about. Well, guess what? AT&T doesn't have 3G in my city and probably won't anytime soon, and definitely not within 2 years.
And the iPhone has WiFi. Which blankets my entire campus and city. Which is much, much faster than 3G.
(And yes, I will agree that some people "depend" on 3G, and the addition of WiFi doesn't help. I'm not one of those people on either count.)
has a finish which is almost impossible to scratch
Since iPhone isn't out yet, I guess we'll have to wait and see how durable it is.
To test iPhone's durability, Thandu says, they doused it with water, dropped it on concrete and bounced it off sidewalks.
Thandu says he took the iPhone with him on long runs, sweating all over it. "We wanted to test the limits of it."
has a real full QWERTY keyboard
Great. I like the keyboard on my Treo, too. But since iPhone has a keyboard when it needs one, we'll see how good it is. Is it likely to be not as nice as a tactile keyboard? Probably not. But then:
Blackjack: 2.3", 320x240
iPhone: 3.5", 320x480
Difference: >50% size, 100% (!) pixels
Not to mention all of the other features and functionality, multi-touch, the tightly integrated music, video, photo, etc., management, user interface, more than double the battery life, and so on. Of course, anyone can say they don't "need" any of these features, but to essentially call the iPhone a piece of junk is a little ignorant.
and cost me a whole of $50.
Congratulations. You get what you pay for. If it does the job and you like it, good for you.
Considering an equivalent story with even less information just got posted to the front page, I'd say it's considered informative.
Also, there's a USA Today article on iPhone today with the first new information from AT&T on the launch (even though it's not much):
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/telecom/2 007-06-20-at&t-iphone-push_N.htm
AT&T girds for iPhone launch on June 29
By Leslie Cauley, USA TODAY
For consumers eager to get their hands on an Apple iPhone, here's the good news: It will be available in all 1,800 AT&T phone stores at 6 p.m. sharp on June 29.
The bad news? "We fully expect one or more of our stores to run out of stock on the first or second day -- my guess is the first day," says Larry Carter, senior vice president of sales for AT&T, the iPhone's exclusive U.S. distributor.
To help accommodate as much foot traffic as possible, AT&T phone stores will stay open an extra hour -- until 10 p.m. -- on the first day.
To get "iReady" for the big day, Carter says AT&T added 2,000 extra sales people to stores. Half will be there just to help handle the expected early crush of buyers. The other half, he says, will stay long-term to help with extra customers the iPhone is expected to draw to AT&T's stores.
Crowd control on launch day is a concern. In some markets -- Carter declined to name them -- AT&T is working with local law enforcement on crowd-control plans. It also has alerted landlords at shopping malls and other phone store locations to make sure nobody is caught off guard.
Not all stores are equal
Carter would not say which stores will have the biggest iPhone stockpiles, but allowed that iPod users are a "natural market" for the smart phone. As such, he says, stores in areas with big numbers of iPod users -- such as New York City, Chicago and much of California -- will be well stocked.
Does that mean that those stores will have more iPhones than stores in, say, Richmond, Va., or Florida? "Yes," he says. "It's just common sense."
If your local store sells out, Carter says sales people will take mail orders, and devices will be shipped in 3 to 5 days, inventory permitting. "Ultimately, we will meet every customer's desire to have one," Carter says.
To discourage sCalpers, AT&T plans to limit how many phones each customer can buy. Carter declined to cite the number, saying only that AT&T would try to prevent "hoarding and reselling."
New service plans for iPhone
There are other surprises in the works for June 29. In addition to launching the iPhone that day, Carter says AT&T also will announce new service plans for it.
He declined to be specific, but says plans will be customized for the iPhone. Translation: The iPhone may offer cool features such as unlimited Web browsing, but you'll have to pay for them.
Carter says the additional fees shouldn't be a surprise. "Regardless of which device you're using today, you pay us a certain amount for (voice) minutes, and you also pay us for data units," he says. "That is also true on the iPhone."
No amount of planning will help, however, if Apple is unable to supply enough phones. "That's what we stay awake at night thinking about," Carter says.
It's also out of AT&T's control. Manufacturing is being overseen by Apple, which also maintains control of design, customer care (for the device, not monthly service), advertising and more.
Apple, famously secretive about its products, has been mum about its Apple Store sales plans. So far, it has not allowed AT&T sales staff access to iPhones so they can get comfortable using them before the big day. "Apple wanted to launch it that way," Carter shrugs.
Only as good as network
One thing AT&T does control, however, is the network on which the iPhone will depend. While network reliability might not have the sex appeal of an iPhone, it could spell the difference between the device becoming a runaway success -- or a flop.
Because it is a superlative value judgement, of course. In who's judgement is he "by far the most influential"? A fanboy's, of course.
Ugh. Look, I'm not the kind of person that thinks that Steve Jobs is some kind of savior. Sure, it's a subjective judgment. But you made it appear that I said that Steve jobs is the most influential person in media, music, and computing in general, when what I said was that he was the most influential person in media, music, and computing to publicly and vocally advocate for the removal of DRM from mainstream music (and is actually following through). Is there any scientific measure by which we can judge this? Of course not. Then why not show my statement in context? Anyone who knows the issues here, and knows all of the people who have come down on the side of anti-DRM (at the very least from a public/PR perspective), would probably agree that Jobs is the most "influential" person to have that position. He's the CEO of a major computer company which is also the largest online music retailer, the CEO of a major computer animation movie company, and a board member of a major media and entertainment corporation (Disney). It's safe to say that he's probably the most influential person in media, music, and computing to have advocated for the removal of DRM from mainstream music.
So it looks like WiFi is the main thing you're taking issue with. Yes, I don't "know" that iPhone won't have WiFi functionality locked to a contract, in the same way I don't "know" for certain that I'll be alive a half hour from now. Ok, ok, maybe that's a slight stretch, but I'm being serious here. Let's examine this:
- In order for WiFi to be locked on iPhone, the phone would need to have some level of awareness of whether it has an active contract with the carrier (in the case of the US, AT&T).
- If it is out of range of all towers and/or the radio is turned off, the phone cannot tell via any mechanism whether it has an active contract.
Would you agree that it would be absolutely ridiculous for WiFi to not work whenever it's out of range of a tower, or, more commonly, its radio is turned off? I suppose you could say that it would check each time it WAS in range and/or turned on, and the second it found out that it no longer had a valid contract, it would immediately disable WiFi. Is that technically possible? Sure. But why on earth would Apple do that? The only reason I'm even talking about it, at all, is because there was one blog post, that is now getting regurgitated everywhere, saying this was the case, even though it appeared to be the result of someone misunderstanding what they were told. If there weren't people going around definitively claiming that it looks like WiFi will be locked to a contract when it makes no sense for it to be, I wouldn't be arguing against that point from a logical standpoint. We don't need to physically have iPhones in either of our hands to know that it would be ridiculous for WiFi to be locked to a contract for the technical reasons I described. And if they did the scenario where they polled and then disabled WiFi the first time it "discovered" it wasn't on contract; well, why would they do that? You say "it would be trivial to do". But why would they? There is NO reason to believe that any more than there is reason to believe that they could have it automatically hang up on each call after 5 minutes. We don't "know" that Apple hasn't done that, either, and it would be trivial for them to implement. Do you understand where I'm coming from here, being serious for a second? There is no reason to believe that WiFi is locked to a contract. You can come back and say there's not reason to believe it isn't, as if that argument is somehow on even footing, when the truth is that it will almost certainly not be "locked" to anything. I know, I know, you can keep going back to the refrain that we "don't know that". But there are logical assumptions you can correctly make without seeing something in your hands. It makes zero sense from any p